top of page
Search
lindaderrick6

Lorries from Country Supplies, Hughenden Valley – I dissociate myself from “HPC’s” views

5 October 2021

Follow me @LindaDerrick1

Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East


Over the past few weeks, I have been approached by a number of residents in Hughenden Valley about a report on the problems of lorry parking caused by Country Supplies at Warrendene Road.




These residents were not only angry about the content of the report but also about what they said was the secretive way in which the report had been produced. They referred to a small group of people being consulted while the report was being compiled, leaving many who were directly affected knowing nothing about what was going on.

The criticisms included the alleged involvement of Hughenden Parish Council; the implication was that the Council had supported Country Supplies rather than the interests of residents.


All I could say to these residents was that I knew nothing about such a report and I knew nothing about any HPC involvement.


These residents referred me to a report on the Hughenden Valley Residents’ Association website at Lorry Parking on Warrenden Rd | Hughenden Valley Residents Association (hughendenresidents.org) . The report went to the North West Chilterns Community Board on 16 September and the deadline for comment was 30 September.


Having read the report, I could see why HV residents were concerned about the proposals and about HPC’s apparent involvement. So, I wrote to Paul Nicholls, the Chairman of HPC, over a week ago to ask for clarification. I received no response.


Since then, residents have also referred me to a news item on HPC’s website. The news item says that there has been considerable correspondence to HPC about the report - so much in fact that the Clerk has not been able to even acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.


As I have not been copied into any of this correspondence by the Clerk nor did I know about the news item, I have asked the Clerk to let me know how many e-mails have been received and the main thrust of what they say.


I also asked Paul Nicholls on Friday for an urgent response to my request for clarification on his role in the report. I have still received no response.


All I can say therefore is that, since I became a councillor in May, the Council has not been informed about this report, has not discussed it and has taken no view on the proposals. Neither has it given Cllr Nicholls authority to speak for the Council on this issue.


Nor has the Council been given any information about the virtual meetings which the report says Cllr Nicholls attended to “discuss ideas for possible solutions to the lorry parking problems”. Nor has Council been copied into any correspondence Cllr Nicholls might have had with the author of the report.


As far as I am aware, any views expressed by Cllr Nicholls are his own views and do not represent those of the Council.


Cllr Nicholls represents Great Kingshill on HPC; the councillors for Hughenden Valley are Cllrs. Kearey, Gieler and Capey.


In the circumstances, I am dissociating myself from any views in the report explicitly or implicitly expressed as those of Hughenden Parish Council.

I am reserving my position on the proposals. It is possible that Country Supplies will put in a planning application. As I am a member of HPC’s Planning Committee, I cannot take a “pre-determined” view and then vote on the application. I note that our local Bucks Councils have also reserved their position.

This is what the report says about HPC’s involvement in the preparation of the report:-


- Paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 say that the Chairman of Hughenden Parish Council was one of the key parties consulted during the preparation of the report;


- Nowhere in the report does it suggest that Cllr Nicholls was acting on an individual basis; residents would therefore assume he was acting on behalf of the Council;


- At various places, the report refers to agreement or consensus by the key parties. So residents would assume that HPC had agreed or formed part of a consensus on issues in the report;


- Most contentiously, paragraph 19.3 says that “The discussions with the key parties on these ideas indicated support in principle”.


Those ideas, in paragraph 19.2, are:-


• A new 2 lane ‘entry only’ access road is provided into the Oakleaf Farm from Bryants Bottom Road to enable lorries and customer vehicles to access the site and wait, if necessary, off the public highway.


• The existing access road is restricted to an ‘exit only’ for all vehicles.


• A small customer car parking area is provided next to the existing yard to facilitate manoeuvring of lorries through the yard area.


These are the proposals which are causing considerable concern and the clear implication is that HPC supports them.

151 views0 comments

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page